Alex’s IM 150 EXT

Alexander1312 said:
Interesting. I thought with bars left and right and the Reefis in the middle that this would be enough. Probably need to change to the 60 degree reflectors for the Reefis.
Click to expand...
120 would be more spread, 60 would be less (narrower).
 
derek_SR said:
120 would be more spread, 60 would be less (narrower).
Click to expand...

Yes, but I assumed you wanted to/could put up to two bars on either side, and need the keep the strength of the Reefis - 120s would make them weaker due to the wider spread. But thinking about it, the 60s would then be probably too strong for the narrower area they are covering, so it would not make sense to change from the 90s (which I assume you are using). Still not sure how running bars only vs a combined setup is better but seems you have figured this out. A good problem to have, and both are high quality options anyway.
 
Alexander1312 said:
Yes, but I assumed you wanted to/could put up to two bars on either side, and need the keep the strength of the Reefis - 120s would make them weaker due to the wider spread. But thinking about it, the 60s would then be probably too strong for the narrower area they are covering, so it would not make sense to change from the 90s (which I assume you are using). Still not sure how running bars only vs a combined setup is better but seems you have figured this out. A good problem to have, and both are high quality options anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't need the PAR, the Reefis are running at a mere 65W. It's all about the spread. If you have ever seen a tank lit with T5s - there's a dramatic difference in the blanket of light, even compared to a ton of LED fixtures. I'm trying to replicate that since T5s have long been considered the gold standard for SPS growth (I believe Halides have very good spread too but I have not seen a nice SPS tank lit by Halides in person). I nearly considered a T5 fixture for this tank but didn't want to deal with the heat, the bulk, and the bulbs.

I think Luca even intended the Helix to basically imitate a T5 bulb. But yeah agreed, both are great options. The Reefis are very good lights - but I would get significantly more spread with a full Helix setup. And more than anything else, that is the limiting constraint for me right now. Some acros don't care that much, but some of the more sensitive and difficult ones will lose flesh quickly anywhere there isn't direct light. There may be other factors at play too, but this seems consistent with other keepers of very dense acropora - and it's only going to get worse as they grow so trying to stay ahead of it.

Absolutely necessary for a nice tank? No. Optimal for acropora? I think probably yes.
 
Last edited:
For my own record since it is hard to keep track where I am buying some things from these days. CO2 scrubber material of good quality from Ebay.

IMG_2015.jpeg
 
Alexander1312 said:
Latest ICP Results (new design of the report, but not a significant improvement in my opinion):

Observations:

The good
- Finally able to reduce Nitrates below 10 mg/l, which took several months to get there (the 11 days shipping reduced it further so it was a bit higher than what it is showing, more around 8).

The bad
- Continue to see 0 values for several trace elements despite increased dosing. Gonies suffer from this in my opinion. Claude says the refugium is the reason for the 0 values and he said I should take it out. Thinking about doing it but not 100% there yet.

The ugly
- 11 days from shipping to results with new west coast collection point Route 66 (LA/coral farm). Not acceptable and I will send it through Lousiana again next time which is faster. To their defense, they totally upgraded their ICP lab during this time which added another 2 days, so technically only 9 days, which is still longer than usual.
Click to expand...
You still using PNS Homegrow regularly?
Maybe putting your skimmer on part time hours since ur fuge is so productive
 
PjFish said:
You still using PNS Homegrow regularly?
Maybe putting your skimmer on part time hours since ur fuge is so productive
Click to expand...

Oh no, the homegrow was used up months ago, probably a reason for my persistent nitrate levels which are now under control, corals loved it though.

I use the skimmer for oxygenation and primarily ozone 24/7, so do not like to to turn it off really.

I am really not sure how productive the refugium is. It grows, I take stuff out, but it never fills up the entire part in the sump. Maybe big enough to take out all minor traces.
 
ReyDeFarts said:
How about taking out the majority of the cheato but not all of it, so it doesn't consume so much?
Click to expand...

The section of the sump where it is is larger, but it never fills it really, maybe one third or so only, so never a lot of cheato growth, since I do manage nutrients. There is probably no point in keeping it except for pod growth etc.
 
Alexander1312 said:
The section of the sump where it is is larger, but it never fills it really, maybe one third or so only, so never a lot of cheato growth, since I do manage nutrients. There is probably no point in keeping it except for pod growth etc.
Click to expand...
Had a discussion with Chad, Kenny, and several others about just this today. General consensus was, for lack of a better word f^ck that sh!t. Chad (Reef Nutrition) said pods don’t need it, they live primarily in the rock and on substrate, chaeto/algae reactors in general don’t matter. Kenny confirmed with his own personal experience. I mean of course to each their own, if it’s working for you cool, but over complicating things tend to cause more problems than they fix.

After today I’m not going to bother with a refugium or reactor for the new tank, I was already leaning away- if anything I can add it in down the road if I feel the need.
 
yosemiteclimber said:
Had a discussion with Chad, Kenny, and several others about just this today. General consensus was, for lack of a better word f^ck that sh!t. Chad (Reef Nutrition) said pods don’t need it, they live primarily in the rock and on substrate, chaeto/algae reactors in general don’t matter. Kenny confirmed with his own personal experience. I mean of course to each their own, if it’s working for you cool, but over complicating things tend to cause more problems than they fix.

After today I’m not going to bother with a refugium or reactor for the new tank, I was already leaning away- if anything I can add it in down the road if I feel the need.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am on the brink of taking the chaeto out. Maybe a quick recap of what the refugium is supposed to do:

- Improve PH stability due to inverse light cycle.
- Reduce nutrients (although I believe this is primarily nitrates)
- Potentially outcompetes other algae (?).
- Provides a home for pods - but so do rocks etc

It is rather simple to setup if it can fit into the sump which it does in my case. So not really a complicated setup.

So from all the benefits, the PH stability is probably the hardest to give up, specificially because I am not (and will not) use Kalkwasser. The alkalinity should be able to buffer this out though.

I might do what Andy @ReyDeFarts suggested to remove (slowly) only a portion of cheato and see what happens and let it gradually adjust to a 0 cheato environment.
 
Alexander1312 said:
specificially because I am not (and will not) use Kalkwasser.
Click to expand...
I feel attacked by this statement! Haaa haaaa. I'm only kidding btw.

I know you've touched on it before. I believe here and maybe another thread. I need to pick your brain more to understand your stance. Because so many folks still swear by it. But the many EU reefers I follow on social media, have been off it for many years already. Very different reefing styles.
 
ReyDeFarts said:
I feel attacked by this statement! Haaa haaaa. I'm only kidding btw.

I know you've touched on it before. I believe here and maybe another thread. I need to pick your brain more to understand your stance. Because so many folks still swear by it. But the many EU reefers I follow on social media, have been off it for many years already. Very different reefing styles.
Click to expand...

Haha. You are in good company though, since half the US reefers feel this way, I think the reef2reef thread on BOLUS has 66+ tabs by now.

Anytime Andy.
 
I am making the following significant changes to my setup, primarily to improve how effectively trace elements are consumed by the tank/corals/biofilms.

Reduction of return pump flow
I have reduced the flow of my return pump by 50% from 2k gph to 1k gph. I wanted to lower it to 5 times my net system volume, but this was the lowest I could set the IM Mighty XL pump. I am currently discussing with IM what the net flow will be given head pressure and plumbing, but I believe it will still be above 5 x net system volume.

The theory behind this change:
The primary consumer of dynamic trace metals are biofilms, they create molecules called extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) that are particularly effective at binding metals from the water. These biofilms convert inorganic elements into organic compounds and will slough off as they grow, forming a slime in the water that the corals feed from, this one of the major routes that corals obtain their trace metals as they are not able to assimilate inorganic traces directly from the water unless through food. The biofilms have high accumulations of the dynamic metals in a significantly higher concentration than the surrounding water. For the corals to obtain those biofilms, they will compete with the sump and skimmer. The skimmer is particularly effective at removing slimes and biofilms once they reach the water column. If there is a massive turnover of water and a very effective skimmer, they will remove the biofilms from the water before the corals can feed on them. Also, the sheer amount of biofilm being removed may limit the progress of biofilm reproduction. A theory is that by being efficient with skimming and not allowing sufficient dwell time, the trace metals are being taken out too quickly and, as a result, reducing the amount of turnover through the sump, allowing a longer dwell time for bacterial production.

Removal of CO2 scrubber
My media effectiveness is about to run out, and I will not renew it and ultimately unplug the CO2 scrubber. This will be a challenging change as I have been enjoying good pH since this was in use, and I consider pH one of the most critical parameters to chase after salinity. Getting the pH back into normal territory without the scrubber will take some time. One method is to increase alkalinity slightly initially and allow for a higher value until this is sorted out by itself. It will take patience.

Theory behind this change:
A CO2 scrubber is going to create precipitation as it directly interferes with the tanks ability to regulate CO2 at night, if the CO2 is unable to be brought in from the air/water interface (skimmer) then excess carbonate is produced - which results in precipitation. When precipitation is created then trace metals will be bound to it. Heavy CO2 scrubbing could be a major factor in how traces are being depleted rapidly.

Removal of refugium
This was something I have been planning to do for some time, but enjoy the benefits of a refugium. I was planning to send one of my large urchins down there but I might just remove the cheato over the period of three weeks or so, one third each week.

Theory behind this change
Refugia strip dynamic metals from the water which result in corals going into photoinhibition, which creates pH issues and instability in the Ca/Alk demand. Immunosuppressants and DNA altering organics seem to be produced by macroalgae, which also affects the corals negatively. Corals have not evolved to deal with such poisons and carbon is not always effective at reducing these.
 
Based on the above, I have been looking into downsizing my return pump since the lowest setting for this pump results in a 1,062 gph flow.

I could not find a head pressure chart for this pumps but several other ones had one, and I assume the results are comparable.

It looks like that at a height of roughly 4 feet in my case, a pump only produces less than 70% of the max water flow for the respective setting. This does not take into consideration the fact the pipes do not go in a straight line but have a few angles.

My target is to have less than 5 x the net tank volume as an hourly turnover.

Using the mighty XL pump, this means the following:

1,062 gph x 0.7 = 743 gph

743 gph / 145 net display volume = 5.1 times the tank turnover. Assuming it is actually lower than this, plus the piping angles, I should be well below 5 x the display volume.

Will see if there is further insights on this topic, per separate thread:

Pump head pressure charts - determining the correct water turnover

I am trying to find the right DC return pump for the flow I am looking for. Many return pumps have charts like the one attached, and I am trying to confirm my understanding of how to read these chart. The way I am reading the one attached shows that at a height of 3.2 feet, the max flow is...
www.bareefers.org
 
Alexander1312 said:
Based on the above, I have been looking into downsizing my return pump since the lowest setting for this pump results in a 1,062 gph flow.

I could not find a head pressure chart for this pumps but several other ones had one, and I assume the results are comparable.

It looks like that at a height of roughly 4 feet in my case, a pump only produces less than 70% of the max water flow for the respective setting. This does not take into consideration the fact the pipes do not go in a straight line but have a few angles.

My target is to have less than 5 x the net tank volume as an hourly turnover.

Using the mighty XL pump, this means the following:

1,062 gph x 0.7 = 743 gph

743 gph / 145 net display volume = 5.1 times the tank turnover. Assuming it is actually lower than this, plus the piping angles, I should be well below 5 x the display volume.

Will see if there is further insights on this topic, per separate thread:

Pump head pressure charts - determining the correct water turnover

I am trying to find the right DC return pump for the flow I am looking for. Many return pumps have charts like the one attached, and I am trying to confirm my understanding of how to read these chart. The way I am reading the one attached shows that at a height of 3.2 feet, the max flow is...
www.bareefers.org
Click to expand...

I would not use one pumps chart to correlate another manufacturer’s pump unless you know them to be of the same OEM. And even then, you have to take into account any differences they make in the software for their controller. It’s also a safe assumption in consideration of head height, pipe length, elbows and gunk in the pumps, you’re probably getting much less than what is the theoretical published number. My guess is you’re getting somewhere between 50-75% of what they say it should be.

TBH, you’re chasing something that probably won’t make much difference. 4x vs 5x vs 6x? Unless you’re getting too little change over (think less than 1x), the difference is going to be pretty negligible I’d imagine. Plus your flow rate is going to change over time and decrease over time as well as gunk, vermatids, etc. grow in the pipes until you clean them. Even if it does make a difference, how are you going to know it actually made a change or test out that theory?
 
RandyC said:
I would not use one pumps chart to correlate another manufacturer’s pump unless you know them to be of the same OEM. And even then, you have to take into account any differences they make in the software for their controller. It’s also a safe assumption in consideration of head height, pipe length, elbows and gunk in the pumps, you’re probably getting much less than what is the theoretical published number. My guess is you’re getting somewhere between 50-75% of what they say it should be.

TBH, you’re chasing something that probably won’t make much difference. 4x vs 5x vs 6x? Unless you’re getting too little change over (think less than 1x), the difference is going to be pretty negligible I’d imagine. Plus your flow rate is going to change over time and decrease over time as well as gunk, vermatids, etc. grow in the pipes until you clean them. Even if it does make a difference, how are you going to know it actually made a change or test out that theory?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am only trying to be below 5 x times the tank volume, but not also not too low really, so at least 2-3 times the tank volume. The charts looked relatively similar across various pumps but I reocognize the Innovative Marine might still be different.
 
Might be an @Srt4eric question but can you have a ball valve on the return to act as a restrictor? Then take the return line, hook that into some silicone tubing and fill a 5g bucket to measure actual flow rate like @richiev . Or syphon a known volume out of your tank during a water change and see how long it takes to refill and start the overflow.

Usually running larger pumps at lower flow rates is much quieter and is one thing to think about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top